AI Kills Me in GDP - GDP Screenshots Incl.

[Cindar]

ORIGINAL: jscott991
Right, I should be able to have about 300 ships/bases at 100 planets, but at 170 planets, they should bankrupt me. That's a logical system.

If you have an earlier save showing yourself at 300 ships/bases at 100 planets, I would like to see it. If you are somehow making less money at 170 planets then 100 planets, its because you were doing something wrong. I'm not talking about maintenance here, I'm speaking purely of gross income.

ORIGINAL: jscott991
And your points about hitting unlimited money when you hit the corruption cap are just outlandish. Fortunately, your position is disproved by your own evidence, so hopefully it won't factor into any design decisions.

No, its entirely true, you just have gotten nowhere near the cap. As far as I can tell once you hit 90% corruption the cap is reached and every extra colony and every extra citizen you get is pure (10%) profit. My income has literally skyrocketed from 600k to 2 million over the space of a few years. If you capped corruption at 50% then the economy would end up exactly the same as in 1.03 except it would take 2x as long to become filthy rich.

[Rustyallan]

Cindar, the point is that the AI, left alone, could not cope with the economy as it's designed.  It took manual intervention and a complete change in several areas to begin recovering.  While this makes sense, it's not the point.  The growing empire with no other factors involved should not have had a decreasing tax income.  Your revamp completely invalidated that test.

While I disagree with jscott on several aspects of this, he has a point and proved it.  Many, if not most people wouldn't have the problem, but the playstyle he chose (leave it all automated to the end) definitely showed there is a problem that goes against the stated design.

[jscott991]

Every screen I have shows that this empire was declining in economic output over time.

That was the whole point. You can see that income declined, despite the fact that I didn't build anything. There's a savegame on the first page, then three screenshots, then the final savegame. In each situation, with the same maintenance costs (actually I did take your suggestion at some point and reduce my station maintenance from 280k to 240k by doing minor mods), the income stream became smaller and smaller.

This empire's position became worse. It lost 20% of its tax revenue and seeped deep into the red with me building nothing and taking no action. Why could it afford its fleet before the first savegame, but not in any of the later ones?

You don't seem to have understood the point of the tests and the use of constants at all.

[Shark7]

Well its seems that Erik has already acknowledged that it is not working as intended. So I'm sure we'll see a fix. Probably time for everyone to chill and just wait a few days (I wouldn't be surprised if Elliot isn't already working on it by now).

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Well its seems that Erik has already acknowledged that it is not working as intended. So I'm sure we'll see a fix. Probably time for everyone to chill and just wait a few days (I wouldn't be surprised if Elliot isn't already working on it by now).

Yes, very true.

I don't know why I'm bothering. Until this is fixed the game is a virtual coaster anyway, so why invest any more effort into this iteration.

[Cindar]

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

[Rustyallan]

ORIGINAL: Cindar

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

It's not my playstyle, but I do like to run games like that once in a while when I can just to see what the AI does. As far as I'm concerned, the game is SUPPOSED to be able to be played like that or there wouldn't be all of the automation options. You're actually encouraged to play hands-off to start with and then disable automation on aspects you want to control.

Anyway, the problem was proven and is being fixed so it's time to move along. I've got a list of diplomacy issues to work on...

Thanks again, jscott, for sticking with us despite the frustration. [8D]

[Shark7]

Actually, I hate micro-management and usually only control colonization, Diplomacy, ship design, 1 or 2 fleets for warring and 1 construction ship to build my resort. I let the AI handle all the rest.

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Cindar

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

There isn't much you can do to affect the economy besides build new colony ships.

If I can afford something in Year 10 with 200 billion people, it makes no sense that those same items are bankrupting me in Year 20 with 300 billion people.

If the game had budget sliders, economic buildings, or any kind of other financial elements, then your statement would be a lot more damning of my playstyle.

Edit: This is fruitless (see below). Despite my endless hours playing the game and tracking my own economic performance, I must have zero grasp on the game, economic entropy, the AI's tendencies, what can be afforded when, and how the game develops over time. Sorry for posting again.

[Cindar]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Actually, I hate micro-management and usually only control colonization, Diplomacy, ship design, 1 or 2 fleets for warring and 1 construction ship to build my resort. I let the AI handle all the rest.

That's almost exactly what I usually do. Obviously you are supposed to be able to automate certain parts of your empire (like, does anyone NOT automate taxes?), but expecting to be able to automate everything AND maintain a fleet thats 3x the size of the fleet the AI has is just silly.

ORIGINAL: jscott991
There isn't much you can do to affect the economy besides build new colony ships.

If I can afford something in Year 10 with 200 billion people, it makes no sense that those same items are bankrupting me in Year 20 with 300 billion people.

It makes sense if those 100 billion people are on crappy worlds paying 5% taxes. Somehow I managed to improve the economy, how was that? No, don't whine about how I scrapped ships because that didn't improve the economy, it only lowered the expenditures.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Cindar

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Actually, I hate micro-management and usually only control colonization, Diplomacy, ship design, 1 or 2 fleets for warring and 1 construction ship to build my resort. I let the AI handle all the rest.

That's almost exactly what I usually do. Obviously you are supposed to be able to automate certain parts of your empire (like, does anyone NOT automate taxes?), but expecting to be able to automate everything AND maintain a fleet thats 3x the size of the fleet the AI has is just silly.

ORIGINAL: jscott991
There isn't much you can do to affect the economy besides build new colony ships.

If I can afford something in Year 10 with 200 billion people, it makes no sense that those same items are bankrupting me in Year 20 with 300 billion people.

It makes sense if those 100 billion people are on crappy worlds paying 5% taxes. Somehow I managed to improve the economy, how was that? No, don't whine about how I scrapped ships because that didn't improve the economy, it only lowered the expenditures.

I would think that building some defensive stations with Recreation and Hospital modules over each planet would go a long way to improving the economy. Happy, healthy people pay more taxes since the colonies grow a bit faster.

[Arnir]

Even if they are only paying 5% taxes, it should still mean there is more money to spend to support the same level of ships, etc.  Shouldn't it?

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Even if they are only paying 5% taxes, it should still mean there is more money to spend to support the same level of ships, etc.  Shouldn't it?

Yes.

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

[ceyan]

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

I don't think it was the design of the system, but it actually works in a realistic scenario. After all adding new colonies and population may mean more tax revenue, but it also means more expenses in managing and supplying them until they are self-sufficient. Of course if they never become self-sufficient then that is an area of concern, but increased revenue via increased population (at least in a realistic model) does not always equal a higher profit. Also that also brings up the question of just how long does it take a colony fed with at least a few luxury goods to become self-sufficient in the game?

I know you'll come back with the same old argument, and honestly I can sort of agree shooting down the idea as a justification, but it does make sense given Distant Worlds tries to emulate a complex economy.

[Arnir]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: jscott991
In other words, simply not playing.

That would be called a gross exaggeration. I realize this is a major problem for your playstyle. All you would have to change in your case is one thing, either reducing the galaxy size or using a government that reduces corruption or increases income until the next update while keeping the rest the same.

Thanks for at least acknowledging a problem.

I've acknowledged that this probably wasn't working as intended from the start, based on your report, but we needed a save file to confirm this.

Which government styles are working properly with the current corruption system?

[Dadekster]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

I don't think it was the design of the system, but it actually works in a realistic scenario. After all adding new colonies and population may mean more tax revenue, but it also means more expenses in managing and supplying them until they are self-sufficient. Of course if they never become self-sufficient then that is an area of concern, but increased revenue via increased population (at least in a realistic model) does not always equal a higher profit. Also that also brings up the question of just how long does it take a colony fed with at least a few luxury goods to become self-sufficient in the game?

I know you'll come back with the same old argument, and honestly I can sort of agree shooting down the idea as a justification, but it does make sense given Distant Worlds tries to emulate a complex economy.

I agree, this models our real life current economy very well in how horribly inefficent it is in running itself. I like to think some of this 'corruption' is actually inefficency and wasted tax payer money on retarded programs we don't want or need, not to mention how much the DoD spends on just R&D [8|] for things like shatterproof coffee makers or whatnot. I can easily see all the red ink and find it very realistic! Doesn't make for a very fun game though [>:] and glad to hear that they are looking into it. Thanks to jscott991 for pushing this issue although you come across as someone who argues for arguements sake sometimes, but glad you did in this case. [;)]

[Bartje]

Hear hear!

**Applause**

Praise to the Jscott & Fisherman axis of proper gameplay & development! 

[:'(]

---

Alert! Alert! - - - - This is a GNN breaking news Report!

---

from: The offices of the Galactic Security Council

to: The general public

concerning: Increases in sectarian action

---

Brave citizens of the Galaxy; today is a sad day.

Jscott and Fishman have allied themselves in a futile effort to resist a new galactic order!

They refuse to acknowledge the dawning of a new reality and cling to the remnants of a troubled past.

These transgressions go against the very principles of liberty and fun that this body was created to propagate!


Will you stand with your government against these malcontents or will you join this new Axis of of proper gameplay & development led by the infamous Jscott and Fishman??

---

...


....


...



[;)]


Really good work exposing this guys!

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Cindar

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

That doesn't mean the game shouldn't have a competent autopilot to control the things you aren't currently focusing on.
I want to be able to take over a fleet or two to wage a war... and have my other 10 fleets wage the other wars as controlled by the AI in the meanwhile.

[Fishman]

You have 10 other fleets? I had 10 *ships*, with fleets that consists of 1 ship. Anything more would have driven me deeper into the red.

[Dadekster]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

You have 10 other fleets? I had 10 *ships*, with fleets that consists of 1 ship. Anything more would have driven me deeper into the red.

LOL you seem to know much more about the inner workings of this game than me by a long shot but dude even I run up to 8 fleets with 5-10 ships in them and my economy supports it easily. That said I also dislike having 200+ colony empires as I find them unwieldy and planets just end up being numbers. I am more a player who enjoys knowing each planet and where it is and what it does (insofar as much as they can be made distinctive which isn't much).